BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:16 AM

I was thinking of Alice's mirror - just been reading it to my eldest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:32 AM

Wonderful story!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM

Essential education for a young mind, I think, probably an old one too. The man was a true genius.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 AM

We have one of the "complete works" books, and there is a wonderful work he did (A Tangled Tale) as a column in a paper -- he set logical problems and readers wrote in with their solutions. He then graded the solutions.

The reason I bring this up is the names the readers used -- some used their actual names, but others picked handles that were just exactly what people use online as anonymous handles today -- for example, Sea-Breeze, Money-Spinner, Simple Susan, Old Cat, Valentine, Bradshaw of the Future, Rags and Tatters.

Some things never do change!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM

Interesting - I don't think I've seen that. I must invest..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM

"All we require evidence for is IF they are going to claim that their faith is *rational*. We have no issue at all with believers who know full well that that their faith is faith-based."

I have plenty of issues with believers, whether or not they consider their beliefs to be rational or faith-based, who impose their beliefs as certainties on children. This is what happens in much of what we misleadingly call religious "education." Actually, if none of them ever did this, I suppose organised religion would quickly die out, and we'd be left with a much better world in which you could believe what you wanted to believe and, generally speaking, accepted that you keep it to yourself except for a few lusty arguments about it in the pub with your mates.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM

just the ghost of a dead horse>/I>

I like that.
..........................
One problem with the practice of throwing insults and sneers around is that it drives people away from the thread. I don't just mean the people who are the targets, but the people who look in and decide they don't want any part of a "discussion" like that.

And of course it is also liable to divert what might be an interesting exchange of ideas into a pointless squabble.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:30 AM

" 'I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality.'

Rather, you have defined scientifically-detectable reality as the only reality. Which, as I said above, you cannot do via science. You believe this independent of scientific evidence, for "science" is a scientific entity."

I fail to see where I did this. Also, I think you're ringfencing science far too much, possibly in an effort to shoot at it all the more easily. Science is not robotic thought executed by robots. It bleeds and becomes a bit less pure, just like the rest of us, and that's what makes it a great human endeavour as opposed to just a great endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:50 AM

Sure is interesting though.

Mudcatters (can't help thinking some might possibly be atheists)   are only too willing to tell us about: priests abusing children, priests involved in an alleged cover-up of a 1972 at atrocity, bigoted statements by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other negatives--real or trumped- up (like the terrible assault by a nurse on a patient (i.e. praying for her--though the patient herself seems to have had no objection), ridiculing Christians-- "imaginary friend" etc.

But when asked for anything positive done by Christians or Christianity---which I have in fact done--all of a sudden very few Mudcatters have anything to say. And certainly nothing positive.   Even on this thread, Bill D is about the only non-believer (aside from me) who has said anything in favor of anything Christians have done.

In general it's the same approach as was done in the 3rd Reich, done by US bigots to justify lynchings, done now by those who want to cite Voz de Aztlan to justify anti-immigrant feeling, etc.:   a steady diet of real and alleged outrages and lumping all in the target group together.

Fascinating that Mudcat atheists (so sorry for the generalization) don't seem to recognize the pattern.

Can't imagine why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:29 AM

Also it's intriguing that Mudcat atheists have not really been very happy when the shoe is on the other foot:   when I have pointed out that atheism when in power has been the worst disaster ever for humanity, and when I have noted that atheism has provided us with virtually nothing in cultural achievement.

It seems that for instance in music the only stunning achievements by atheists were when they were willing to work within the Christian idiom entirely--with no trace of atheism whatsoever.   Unless of course you agree with the illustrious Mudcatter who has assured us that Frank Zappa is every bit the equal of Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Tallis, Byrd, etc. But perhaps that is the general feeling among Mudcat atheists. Far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen. The same however is not true of Christianity--or other religions.

And I am speaking of course only of atheism, not agnosticism.   Agnosticism, as I've said before, makes perfect sense. Atheism--especially the aggressive atheism amply seen on Mudcat-- is just the flip side of fundamentalist religion.

And just as desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:46 AM

Of course, all-knowing and all-seeing one. Whatever you say.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:08 AM

I'd still like to fly the flag for ignosticism.

Atheism takes the question "Does God exist?" and says "No!". Agnosticism says "Ooooooh. I don't know." Ignosticism says "That isn't a meaningful question. Why consider it at all."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:45 AM

There are lots of positive things that believers have done; the trick is, none of it required what they believe in. You can just do good.

Faith is very helpful for good people to do evil, however.

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any. Ignosticism is kinda like apatheism - don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:03 AM

Mousethief, would you be willing to turn your eloquence to a question I asked some time back and didn't get much answer to?

I'm glad to say I'm not one who insists on scientific, repeatable proof. Spiritual experience can't (yet) be defined in that way, and yet it exists. Goodness in human beings is palpable but not measurable. My question: Why do these experiences and contact with holy people lead anyone to believe in the specific details of any religion? How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:13 AM

Deep question, there, JohnP.

Ron, I think you are exagerrating the situation. I've joined a number of these threads, and I have used the expression imaginary friends in a sarcastic tone, for which I should apologize. I am well aware that millions of good deeds are done by Christians every day.

I di not believe this is directly, causally connected with their religious convictions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM

Mrrzy

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any.

I've just had a quick browse. The OED says "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." which is interesting because "Disbelief in" and "denial of" are rather different. Other sources talk about weak and strong atheism.

Ignosticism is kinda like apatheism - don't care.

A little pejorative but fair enough. Why should someone care about a question they find meaningless?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"

Carl Sagan again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:45 AM

Unless of course you agree with the illustrious Mudcatter who has assured us that Frank Zappa is every bit the equal of Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Tallis, Byrd, etc.

Illustrious, eh? Well, on an average day maybe, when I might get as far as Bach, Dowland, Tallis, Tye, Handel, Morley, Lawes, Ferrabosco, Jenkins, Byrd etc. but the humanity of their evident secularism (the occasional In Nomine notwithstanding but I'd argue that was essentially a secular convention) transcends their so-called sacred output; Purcell likewise, who, like Zappa, was a master of the ostinato and had fondness for folklore & obscenity. Purcell was at his most potent celebrating the human dimensions - even to the point where many feel his music for Queen Mary could well betray yet deeper emotions... Lawes evokes classical paganism by way of popular fantasy, the eroticism of which makes it still pretty effective as music to fuck to, likewise Purcell, of course, covering some of his most sensual work in the likes of King Arthur and The Fairy Queen which prefigures Handel's finest work, which most certainly isn't The Messiah. Give me the Arcadian revels of Acis and Galatea (HWV 49) any day. Compositionally, however, I'd say Uncle Meat (1969) is the equal of anything any of these guys ever came up with and is every bit as trascendent.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

"It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen."

It didn't. Religion arose and created atheism for itself in its wake.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM

Ron said up ^ there....

"It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen. "

?? Ummm.. Ron... that's a funny way to say 'I think that atheism is a poorer choice than agnosticism.' To extrapolate how our entire history 'might' have been different if some folks had not been adamant about their non-belief is a bit presumptuous. (this is an example of a counterfactual conditional, and as the link shows, is fraught with difficulties)

Even though I sorta agree with you, Ron, about the tediousness of 'table-pounding' atheism, I do find 'militant agnosticism' to be pretty curious, also.. ☺

You give me some credit for trying to be 'fair' in MY posts as I recognize many of the positive contributions of the religious attitude. I'd like to suggest that inflammatory rhetoric is counter-productive, no matter what you are defending or promulgating.

Huh? What did Bill say? He said, "you can catch more flies with sugar..." and "A soft answer turneth away wrath" ..
and my own timeless contribution, made up on the spur of the moment just to have a trio of wise sayings: "Choosing to be a lightning rod leads to many shocking encounters"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM

Atheism is default enlightenment - it existed before humans kicked off the shackles of nature in exchange for the freedom afforded by language, culture & cognition. The prospective urge was always scientific, before some doofus started extending names to include personifications of those things that hitherto (in our natural / animal state) hadn't been an issue. So out of Language & Science came Gods and Mythology - and then Religion when people started taking it a little too literally. Thus Gods which had hitherto sufficed as metaphors for nature became greater than nature itself. Generally despised, nature became the metaphor for God, who Created All Things; a very useful device for political control once you've created Heaven and Hell to go with it...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

Stephen Hawking has entered the fray on this subject once again: here.

"But when asked for anything positive done by Christians or Christianity---which I have in fact done--all of a sudden very few Mudcatters have anything to say. And certainly nothing positive"

Perhaps that is because the question is asinine. Good deeds and bad deeds are done by people regardless of their faith or lack thereof; what's the point of listing them?

My local vicar, who I met years ago when we were both working in the new media industry and was a contractor I was liaising with on a project his company was involved with (although unbeknownst to me at the time he was a curate) was a person who I liked from the day I met him and I was completely unaware of his calling. He is a warm, friendly and wonderful man with a deep faith, a gentle turn of phrase and genuine compassion for his parishioners and beyond. In fact, were I to be buried (I don't want to be, preferring instead to become part of the carbonate cycle and join the dance of the tectonic plates for eons after my demise) then I would have this man commit me to the earth. He treats all he meets with equanimity and gives them his full attention, a wonderful chap.

The vicar in a village I lived in a few years ago was, on the other hand, a condescending, stuck-up old scrotum whose ability to peer down his nose at some of his less sophisticated parishioners (unless they were buying him a pint) was breathtaking to observe. He was not a person I liked in the slightest and I don't think he liked me to much, as I didn't want to pay lip service to a person who I considered then a charlatan; as time as passed I think my judgement was harsh, he was simply a miserable, ignorant old sod and they're personality traits (which I share with him).

So it's irrelevant Ron. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in the discussion or want to pick an argument for some reason. Oh well.


"It's really disingenuous to pull such a stunt."

I'm not sure it's disingenuous, just trite. It's a fine line you have to tread when debating with believers (and vice-versa for believers, I suppose) of any faith as invariably the debaters have little common ground in their world view. John P's question is one of the best posed, but let's face it no-one here is interested in debating the mystical side of the religious or non-religious human experience as I've tried and the posts were all more or less ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM

Bill D, how do you make those little smiley faces?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:23 PM

(You will note that I don't classify myself with a specific label in these discussions.....with one exception.

Because I am 'technically' an agnostic; (that is, I truly "don't know") but practically an atheist; (that is, I really don't 'believe' that a Supreme Being guides the universe"....what I choose to call myself when I accept a label at all is **skeptic**...meaning that I react to the claims of others about metaphysical entitied with 'doubt' and questions about evidence & logic.
   All about me I see various assertions about god, creationism, 'spirit' 'angels', as well as interwoven beliefs regarding astrology, magic, past lives, OOB experiences...etc., etc. Some of these beliefs by others impact my life in various ways and to varying degrees, thus I respond to them in various ways when I feel 'moved'.

   Seldom do I see any value in flatly denying someone's belief/assertion...unless it is totally absurd and dangerous as well. All I want to do is note alternative ways of reasoning about the issues and clarifying the implications that certain belief systems have built in.....and before anyone objects...yes, I DO hope that my poking & nagging will create a bit more 'skepticicism' in others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:29 PM

One thing we tend to lose sight of is that a privately held belief may never become public, may never be known. In a society or culture or time when almost everyone espouses a similar belief, it is safer and less troublesome to publicly object.

A person may well be a believer in an atheistic society but not dare, for whatever reason, to say so. Conversely, a person may well be a non-believer in a believing society (whether Christian or functioning under any other label) and find it less trouble to keep his or her silence. I know that on occasion I have not spoken up; I try to pick my battles and being in the presence of an assertion of faith amongst the elderly or the imprisoned or the dying is not the battle I would pick. It would be tactless, at the very least, and grievously insensitive at the worst.

I doubt this has changed much over the centuries. I would guess that some of the most soaring religious music was composed by unbelievers, and that some of the most rational dissertations were presented by believers.

After all, it is really no one else's business what each of us privately believes.

That said, it is also not my business to question what - or whom - the anguished and torn may turn to in the dark hour of the night.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:33 PM

So it's irrelevant Ron. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in the discussion or want to pick an argument for some reason.

Ron The Simple Seeker is often assinine and irrelevant, and he's historically not interested in discussion, but in making Great Pronouncements From On High.

He tends to get tetchy when his omniscience and infallibility are challenged by mere mortals.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM

Greg:

Show a bit more tolerance for those with whom you disagree, okay? Name-calling is so passé!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 PM

Ebbie hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:04 PM

Just answering as poster's question & providing information, Amos.

I did not call The Simple Seeker assinine and irrelevant, I was quoting descriptions provided by others.

Ron styles HIMSELF as "The Simple Seeker"[ not my name for him, but his own.

I neither agree with nor disagree with what he's posted on this thread- since, as others have notices, his postings are largely irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:16 PM

Elegantly put, Eb.

Greg, Ron is a major contributor to the delights of the Getaway, a sterling proponent of our mutual art, and I hate to see him being embattled even if he deserves it in some way. A sharp tongue turneth away understanding.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM

... even if he deserves it ...

Which he most assuredly does. However, the solution is in HIS hands, not mine. He can stop acting the pompous know-all jackass any time he wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:30 PM

Sigh . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:33 PM

He does repeat himself a bit, doesn't he? Needle stuck in the same groove...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.
Dalai Lama

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy away
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

Unfortunately, belief in gods arose before our intelligence did - they were/it was (the gods or the belief) the best explanation our child-minds could come up with for natural phenomena. Later, religion arose and was amazingly adaptive for the priest-caste (or whatever), and now here we are, fighting the good fight for the rearguard intelligence that came later...

To do is to be - Kant
To be is to do - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

I fail to see where I did this.

Every time you say "there is no evidence for religion."

Of course, all-knowing and all-seeing one. Whatever you say.

How much easier it is to say that than to actually engage with what he's said. It's the coward's way out.

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any.

Any time atheism says, "God is a delusion" it is saying there are no gods, not that it doesn't believe in any.

Why do these experiences and contact with holy people lead anyone to believe in the specific details of any religion? How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

I think in part it depends on the framework. But also the content of the experience. I have heard tell (never met any myself) of Muslims who had a mystical experience of Jesus and became Christians (yes, I know Jesus is a prophet in Islam; I'm just relating the story). In other cases such experience merely reaffirms the religious position the person has already made. Which leads to the question how did they decide on that religion in the first place? Some will have been through historical evidence or informal reasoning; others because that's what they grew up in, or that's what was in the society they grew up in. Most often a mixture of the three. Depends on the person.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Here you go, an atheist calling theism "delusion". Which means he must be sure for himself that God doesn't exist. This is not just a negative thing ("I don't believe X") but a positive thing ("I believe not-X").

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe

This is just a sad mixture of scientism and bulverism. Then again Sagan, although a great astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, was a pretty shitty philosopher. There's a reason why people called his show, "Sagan's Circus."

The prospective urge was always scientific

On what do you base this assumption? None of us were around then, and those people didn't leave much to us except cave paintings and stone tools. It's hard to see how you can extrapolate from that to their attitude about the world being scientific.

Ron The Simple Seeker is often assinine and irrelevant, and he's historically not interested in discussion, but in making Great Pronouncements From On High.

The irony of this is just astounding.

I did not call The Simple Seeker assinine and irrelevant, I was quoting descriptions provided by others.

Why would you quote inflammatory descriptions if not to be inflammatory? Maybe to discuss the description itself, but you weren't doing that, you were labelling Ron.

Unfortunately, belief in gods arose before our intelligence did

Another assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Clearly both sides are capable of believing things on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM

God's lcation
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507605,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM

Interesting how the headline is "Scientists locate God Spot in human brain" when in the text of the article itself it says, "Such results fit with previous research which shows that no single 'God spot' exists in the brain."

Stupid headline writers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM

I think in part it depends on the framework. But also the content of the experience. I have heard tell (never met any myself) of Muslims who had a mystical experience of Jesus and became Christians (yes, I know Jesus is a prophet in Islam; I'm just relating the story). In other cases such experience merely reaffirms the religious position the person has already made. Which leads to the question how did they decide on that religion in the first place? Some will have been through historical evidence or informal reasoning; others because that's what they grew up in, or that's what was in the society they grew up in. Most often a mixture of the three. Depends on the person.

Mousethief, I wasn't asking for anecdotes or generalizations. I was asking for your rationale. I have no problem with the type of evidence you've been talking about. My problem is with the next step in the chain of logic. There still has to be a way that you convince yourself of the existence of a super-being based on the evidence you have. I don't see the observed phenomena adding up to the conclusion you've drawn. So far, my conclusion is that you're making things up, or rather accepting as truth things that other people have made up. Is there a reason I should think anything else?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:20 PM

"Then again Sagan, although a great astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, was a pretty shitty philosopher"

Well, I'm not going to argue with a philosophy expert about philosophers - I'd be way out of my depth. However, to my simple mind Sagan (whilst not entirely original in many of his pronouncements) did have some insight into the sense of wonder, the search for the sublime and incredible majesty of the universe and he understood that the transcendence felt and intuition that greater forces are at work in the universe wasn't confined to people with a faith.

Shine a light - I love Rothko and finding dinosaur bones and The Electric Light Orchestra.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM

funny, that Hawking link:

"Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God..'

then underneath: "Poll: Is Hawking right?"

we get to VOTE on it? ☺

..........................................................

(I make the smiley faces by doing this: (I hope this works)

<big>?</big>


all you need to do in Windows is hit "alt 1" to make a face ☺ alt 2 makes a dark face ☻...to make it bigger, I do the angle bracket thing like doing italics or underlining, but with 'big' in between

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:59 PM

" 'I fail to see where I did this.'

Every time you say "there is no evidence for religion."

I have never said that there is no evidence for religion. Clearly, we scientific types are better sticklers for accuracy than you philosophical types.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:30 PM

But, there are no data which support a god hypothesis *more than* a natural one for *any* known phenomenon. So there is no earthly reason to posit the supernatural. Hee hee, get it? I said Earthly. That's supposed to be funny...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:31 PM

To grasp the universe as it really is is no small feat; but there is a gross divide between the universe of energy and matter rolling around in spacetime, and the universe of thought, communication, understanding, and a whole spectrum of related things such as ethics, insight, intent, and creativity.

The slippery slope in confusing these realms, as I have mentioned before to Bill is that you can easily get sunk into the apparent solidity of things and lose all contact with your higher qualities, reduced in scope to a dull-witted computing machine with no higher goal than to keep passing food through the food-tube.

It helps (perhaps) to remember that the most elevated adherents of many philosophies --religious or otherwise--assert with complete tranquility that what is illusory is not thought, not the Viewer, but the apparent massive solidity of particles and masses galumphing through Time.


A.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM

"...as I have mentioned before to Bill.."

well, yes...a time or two.

"...the apparent solidity of things.."?? as opposed to the non-apparent realms you have mentioned a few times? ;>)

I am quite content with whatever 'higher qualities' I have being recognized and appreciated, no matter what their ultimate being-ness might consist of. I just see no purpose in positing realms that are hard to pin down, when we can, like Dr. Samuel Johnson, just kick this realm to verify it. ☺

"the most elevated adherents of many philosophies..... assert..." appeal to authority?

Many of them now assert just the opposite. *shrug*


relevant to the thread topic

relevant to the topic AND to me & Amos

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM

A propos of nothing, I'd appreciate kind thoughts/prayers: I interviewed today for a job as an adjunct professor at a local community college teaching intro Phil.

Mousethief, I wasn't asking for anecdotes or generalizations. I was asking for your rationale.

Sorry, John, you said "anyone" and I thought that's the question you were asking. You didn't say "you". As I said before I'm not going to lay bare my soul on a hostile internet thread. Sorry.

However, to my simple mind Sagan (whilst not entirely original in many of his pronouncements) did have some insight into the sense of wonder, the search for the sublime and incredible majesty of the universe and he understood that the transcendence felt and intuition that greater forces are at work in the universe wasn't confined to people with a faith.

Completely agree.

I have never said that there is no evidence for religion.

Wellllllll, you did say:

I like my Christian friends, all of whom are good, moral, honest people. I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM

Mousethief, I'm sorry you feel like this is a hostile thread. I didn't think it was, and I certainly don't feel any hostility. I just want to understand.

Actually, Steve Shaw was the one who said he'd never said there wasn't any evidence for religion. It was my quote you responded with. I've since decided to accept ideas that you would consider evidence. I'm just having a problem with a conscious god and a resurrected redeemer. I don't see how the evidence supports that conclusion. Admittedly, the evidence you have supplied is somewhat meager; is there more?

I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts. It just makes it sound like you don't have rational reasons for your conclusions, which brings us back to my original assessment. I don't think there's anything wrong with you having faith, but if you want others to think it's not irrational you should either provide the reasons or not make the claim that evidence exists.

Best,
John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

Oh, and good luck with the job! My good thoughts are with you. Which college are you trying for?

It's a hard time to be applying for work. I've been conducting interviews at work and seeing a lot of people who are very over-qualified being willing to take a lot less pay than they should be getting. It would be great if you could actually get a job doing something you like.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM

mousethief

A propos of nothing, I'd appreciate kind thoughts/prayers: I interviewed today for a job as an adjunct professor at a local community college teaching intro Phil.

If we assume that all the other candidates have asked for "kind thoughts/prayers", what is God to do? Does He/SHe/It count them? Weigh them? Allocate them points for sincerity? (Do Mudcat prayers count higher?) Does He/SHe/It intervene in the interviewer's thought processes? Or does He/SHe/It think "I gave them free will. I will let the interviewer choose the best person for the job for the benefit of the students."?